Taiwan's legal system attracts withering criticism from professional and lay quarters, and at times not without reason. Rarely mentioned, however, is the fact that the day-to-day workings of the legal system proceed with little controversy. The need for reform is clear, but for now the fundamentals are attended to and there are mechanisms of appeal in place to protect against error and excess to some degree.
Yesterday saw the start of the release of more than 25,000 prisoners, courtesy of an amnesty lobbied for by acolytes of President Chen Shui-bian (
Recent and controversial overseas examples of executive privilege overriding judges and juries include US President George W. Bush commuting a jail term for White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby ahead of a possible full pardon. Then, yesterday, we saw an example of this process in our region that was applied to a person not yet convicted.
Australian immigration minister Kevin Andrews has used his discretionary powers to revoke the visa of Mohamed Haneef, an Indian doctor who had been detained without charge under special security legislation over alleged links to terrorists in England. Although he was granted bail over the terrorism probe, Haneef will be detained in an immigration detention center until his trial concludes, when he will be convicted as a terrorist of some nature or, in a Kafkaesque scenario, deported as an undesirable if found not guilty.
The online edition of the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday reported that the minister received information from federal police that prompted the decision. But why wasn't this information -- if there actually was any information -- brought to the attention of the court in the first place?
The conduct of the minister might be legal in the strict sense and a potential vote-winner, but it is also an act of impressive contempt for the Australian legal system, and not just because the minister is threatening Haneef's ability to receive a fair trial. The message is loud and clear: On matters of national security or the perception of such, or on anything else, the government will prevail over the courts by any means necessary, and that evidence, innocence and personal reputation count for nothing where foreigners are involved.
In recent years the Australian government has made a mockery of natural justice by creating and revising, on a needs-be basis, laws excising offshore territory for the purposes of limiting the legal options of asylum seekers. This is merely one example of its exploitation of foreigners for political gain at a time of genuine cause for alarm over global terrorism.
The curious thing is that in so many other ways Australia has been and is a generous and just nation to its new arrivals. How mystifying it is, then, that such horse play should send a message to the region that most Australians surely would rather not hear: "Our legal system is not competent to pronounce guilt, so the government shall do so by fiat."
Taiwanese are fortunate not to have a homegrown terror threat. Thus, it is unlikely that Taiwanese will find themselves at the wrong end of an Australian ministerial order canceling a visa on "character" grounds over terrorism fears.
However, this cavalier approach to executive power is not just a sign of things to come, but also a sign of the way things have been developing for some time in Australian federal governance. Given the record of Prime Minister John Howard and his Cabinet in playing dirty politics on immigration and other domestic ethnic difficulties, it is worth keeping an eye out for what will happen next.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.